Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Guardians of the Galaxy Review

The best thing about James Gunn’s “Guardians of the
Galaxy”—the latest Marvel universe picture—is that it introduces a new universe
and a new set of characters. And even though it’s inevitable that there will be
a “Guardians/Avengers” crossover in the near future, this first installment
remains an isolated affair. There are no cameos from other superheroes and
there aren’t even any mentions of Tony Stark or Bruce Banner in passing. If
you’re like me then this will be a relief. I know I can’t be the only one who’s
tired of all the interconnectivity of the Marvel movies (for the sake of this
review, I’m only talking about Marvel Avenger movies, not Spiderman or X Men).

There’s nothing inherently wrong with trying to bring
together multiple superheroes but Marvel has treated the whole affair as a big
budget television show rather than a movie franchise. Most of the “movies” serve the sole purpose of
teasing the next episode. I’d argue that we didn’t really get a complete movie
until Joss Whedon’s “The Avengers” in 2012. And now, with “Avengers 2” on the
horizon and Marvel into Phase 2 (with movies like “Thor: The Dark World,” “Iron
Man 3” and “Captain America: The Winter Solider”) we’re back to where we were. Each
new movie just another episode. There are good things to be found in some of
these episodes. “Iron Man 3” and “Captain America” are competently made movies
but there’s just nothing that memorable about them. They follow the same
watered down superhero template; there aren’t any major surprises because
Marvel has everything planned out until far in advance.

Anyway, getting back
to the movie at hand. I hope Marvel explores the universe set up in “Guardians”
as an isolated incident more in the future as opposed to quickly mating with
The Avengers’ universe. Gunn’s movie feels more like “Star Wars” than a previous
Marvel flick. It takes place in a galaxy far far away (presumably) and the
viewer is plopped down right into the middle of an intergalactic struggle
between the Nova Corps and the evil Cree forces (essentially, the Rebel Forces
vs. The Empire). From there we’re exposed to an array of colorful alien
characters from a variety of different worlds, with goofy names and elaborate
costumes. And of course, there are the Guardians themselves, the intergalactic
misfits and outcasts that have to put aside their differences and fight the
empire.

First up the leader and sole human member Peter Quill aka
Starlord, (Chris Pratt) a laid back outlaw who’s a cross between Andy Dwyer and
Han Solo… though he’s basically Luke Skywalker. Next, there’s Gamora (Zoe Saldana),
a green skinned alien orphan who’s the adopted daughter of the main baddie Thanos.
Then there’s Rocket Raccoon (voiced by Bradley Cooper), a loud-mouthed mutant
raccoon that doesn’t take crap from no one. He’s like Han Solo if, instead of
being frozen in Carbonite, Darth Vader had spliced his DNA with a raccoon’s.
Then there’s Rocket’s trusty sidekick Groot, (voiced by Vin Diesel) a mutant
tree whose arch nemesis sadly isn’t an intergalactic lumberjack. To bring it
back to “Star Wars”, he’s a less intelligent and less compelling Chewbacca. He’s
a tree that can only say his name. The only “Star Wars” characters not here are
the droids C-3PO and R2-D2; in their place is… Drax The Destroyer (WWE wrestler
Dave Bautista) who’s essentially Dave Bautista painted blue, talking in pidgin English.

Speaking of weirdness—did you not just read the previous
paragraph? --“Guardians of the Galaxy” is probably the weirdest Marvel
superhero movie to date. I mean we’re talking about a team of heroes that
consists of a talking raccoon and a talking tree. That makes a character like
Thor look like Agent Colson. And that’s not even all of the weirdness. For
example, there’s also a blue skinned alien bounty hunter played by Merle Dixon
from “The Walking Dead” that has a flying arrow weapon thing he can control by
whistling. As ridiculous as all of this may sound, it works heavily in
”Guardians” favor. I was never bored during the entire movie. The sheer
bizarreness of the world and the characters kept my attention for the full two
hours. This is something I can’t say about the other recent Marvel Avenger
movies (“Thor 2,” “Captain America 2,” I’m looking at you).

Granted, it can get messy and convoluted. Unlike “The
Avengers” we weren’t separately introduced to the Guardians and instead of
easing us into this new strange universe Gunn just sort of pushes us into the
lake. It’s messy and a little disorienting, but at least it’s watchable. At
least it strives to shake things up. To get away from “Star Wars,” it was like
watching Andrew Stanton’s underrated “John Carter” in 2012.

I haven’t talked much about the plot and that’s because it’s
the worst, most forgettable part of the movie. The central conflict involves
getting a special orb that contains a special stone that can either save or
destroy the universe. It’s always about getting some kind of object; even in
“The Avengers” everyone was after a special staff. Aren’t there any other
conflicts or MacGuffins out there? This would be more tolerable if the central
character interaction was better but The Guardians, as nutty as they may be,
don’t have the same chemistry down that the Avenger’s had and since we’re being
introduced to them for the first time their development throughout the picture
remains fairly weak.

Part of this might also have to do with the acting, which
ranges from forgettable to hammy to flat out terrible. Not surprisingly, the
WWE wrestler gives the worst performance but even seasoned actors like John C
Reilly or Glenn Close in minor roles--done up in goofy costumes and makeup--turn
in really hammy performances, while talented actress Zoe Saldana is nearly
forgettable as Gamora. Pratt is the only one that stands out and even he tends
to overact most of the time. In fact it’s safe to say his character in “Guardians”
is just as animated as his character was in the animated Lego movie from
earlier this year. He’s fun to watch, especially if you like him on “Parks and
Recreation” but he doesn’t quite feel like a superhero franchise lead. At least
not yet.

Tonally the movie is extremely
silly. Which is saying something considering the general tone in Marvel is
already pretty silly. “Guardians” feels like a PG comedy, which is also saying
something since the movie’s actual rating is PG-13. There’s a moment where Peter
literally dances to eighties music-- F.Y.I., the movie has lot of eighties pop
and rock music, from the likes of David Bowie and The Runaways—to distract the
main bad guy. I laughed a few times but most of the humor felt directed at
people younger than me. Nothing necessarily wrong with that except as an adult
I couldn’t get as emotionally invested in the characters and their plight, as a
seven or ten year old might. There’s not much weight behind what happens. As
silly as it is, I don’t think James Gunn wants the viewer to take it entirely
as a comedic work and yet the comedy overpowers all of the attempts at serious
emotion. A side story involving Peter’s mom (who died of cancer when he was
kid) fails to make any kind of an impression.

Overall, I think “Guardians Of the Galaxy” works well on a
macro level but not so much on a micro level. I liked that Gunn throws us into
a brand new universe with its own mythology without reference to other
superheroes. Narratively however, the movie’s underwhelming but I think that in
future installments—assuming The Guardians stay in their own universe—if the
world is further explored, the characters are better developed and the kiddie
humor is toned down slightly there could be another great or near great Marvel
movie (after “The Avengers”).

Even though I’ve lost
interest in most of the Marvel cinematic universe I remain cautiously
interested in what The Guardians might do next.